Chandra Bozelko: Case against Cuba Good Jr. is a social justice crash site

Chandra Bozelko More Content Now

Friday

Oct 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM

Cuba Gooding Jr.’s trial was supposed to start Oct. 10. The New York Police Department charged him with two misdemeanors on June 12, accusing him of grabbing a woman’s breast at the Magic Hour Rooftop Bar and Lounge in Manhattan.

I knew that the #MeToo movement, once it got its second, stronger wind in 2017, would careen toward the criminal justice reform movement on a collision course. Gooding’s case is one of its crash sites.

Earlier this year, the New York General Assembly passed a rather progressive criminal justice reform package. Among other reforms like curtailing the use of cash bail, New York’s speedy trial law underwent some changes.

The law requires that felonies be tried within six months and misdemeanors like Gooding’s charges within 90 days. Sept. 13, 2019, marked the 91st day his misdemeanor charges had been pending. Under the text of the law, Gooding’s case should have already been thrown out.

But it wasn’t. It was continued to its 119th day, Oct. 10, for trial and delayed again because new charges are forthcoming, The New York Times reported that day.

Because various clock-stopping methods further erode it, the right to be tried within a particular time frame doesn’t really exist. For instance, in New York the prosecution can freeze it by filing a “certificate of readiness.” By stating that the government is ready for trial, it invokes a protection that removes the need to be ready for trial: Parties can come to trial and ask for a continuance anyway. This tactic buys parties time when they’re supposed to move the case along more quickly. This is bad for innocent defendants who want to clear themselves and good for guilty parties because the wait can eventually be used against the state. The new law addresses these holds on speedy trials.

In Gooding’s case, the district attorney’s office has not filed a certificate of readiness, according to Gooding attorney Mark Heller’s office on Oct. 9, but other laws and motions, including the new charges, extended their time.

While the new speedy trial law doesn’t go into effect until January, it would have allowed the judge to check in and restart the clock every time Gooding appeared before him/her to keep the district attorney to the 90-day deadline. Instead, Gooding’s attorney won’t be able to move for a dismissal until the “appropriate statutory time,” Heller’s office said.

Framers of the law concerned themselves with the lack of speedy trial rights less for people like Gooding and more for defendants who can’t afford bail, but the tactics used against Gooding are exactly the type of abuse that the new law tries to stop.

The problem is that the behavior alleged against Gooding is exactly the type of abuse that society is trying to stop. The #MeToo movement wants to hold perpetrators of sexual violence accountable and exert considerable pressure on prosecutors to pursue sexual crimes more zealously. Gooding’s case is an example of that; prosecuting anyone for this crime is rare, and the fact that they want to charge him with more shows #MeToo’s effect. If that newfound fervor moves at the wrong tempo, accountability looks less likely when the speedy trial law is in place, at least in New York.

#MeToo and criminal justice reform aren’t predestined for a social justice wreck. It’s possible to believe Gooding is guilty and still think that his case should be thrown out under speedy trial guarantees. It’s possible to exonerate Gooding and still believe women. The road to righteousness doesn’t need be blocked by a multi-movement pile-up.Chandra Bozelko writes the award-winning blog Prison Diaries. You can follow her on Twitter at @ChandraBozelko and email her at outlawcolumn@gmail.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.